Why is eating animals okay, but not humans?

The slave trade made our lives easier too. Should we bring that back?

There is no objective answer to this question. Vegans/vegetarians will insist that they are right in every way possible and meat eaters frankly do not give a flying **** how animals are killed. Simple.

OK so as long someone doesn't care, that makes it ok. Got it.

Heck, let's drop some more nukes on Nagaski, I'm sure some people don't give a flying ****, so that makes it ok. Simple.

They do eat humans in some places.

So you're comparing the killing of animals for food to the killing of humans during wartime.

Yes, real smart logic.

We are carnivores, not cannibals.

But what's the difference in the meat of an animal, and that of a human?

I would eat u

M8, you wouldn't know where to start.

But you said as long as someone doesn't care, it's an irrelevant question.

It's literally your logic.

But what's the difference in the meat of an animal, and that of a human?

If it were served on a plate, grilled and seasoned, could you tell the difference? Or would your brain say 'YUM! DECAYING CARCASS ON MY PLATE! LET ME GET A SIDE OF FRIES WITH THIS!'

No, read properly.

What I said: There is no objective answer to this question because vegetarians will insist they are right and meat eaters don't give a ****.

Let me break that sentence for you so you can understand. Meat eaters don't give a **** how animals are killed. Vegetarians think they are right all the time. Both ideologies are subjective and no "right" answer can be drawn from the question.

So out of that sentence please point where I said it's irrelevant because meat eaters don't care. I am pointing out that there is no right answer, but instead you present a straw man to the argument and imply that I said that it's okay for animals to be killed.

You are also comparing two completely different things and in the wrong context. You are comparing the killing of humans for food to the bombing of a city during the war.

Try again.

The vegetarian community is putting forth an argument (which is correct, but let's ignore that for the moment).

Meat eaters have no correct defence to this argument and have the cheap cop out of I don't care.

You're saying because one party doesn't care, their is no right answer by default. That is like going to Court, the Prosecution putting its side across, the Defence saying it doesn't care, and the judge having the case thrown out, because there is no right answer because one party doesn't care.

'BUT BUT THE MEAT TASTE GOOD SO THAT MEANS ITS OK TO TORTURE ANIMALS'